A Turing machine is a theoretical computing system, described in 1936 by Alan Turing. A Turing machine that can efficiently simulate any other Turing machine is called a Universal Turing Machine (UTM). The Church-Turing thesis states that any practical computing model has either the equivalent or a subset of the capabilities of a UTM.
A quantum computer is any physical system that harnesses one or more quantum effects to perform a computation. A quantum computer that can efficiently simulate any other quantum computer is called a Universal Quantum Computer (UQC).
In 1981 Richard P. Feynman proposed that quantum computers could be used to solve certain computational problems more efficiently than a UTM and therefore invalidate the Church-Turing thesis. See e.g., Feynman R. P., “Simulating Physics with Computers” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 21 (1982) pp. 467-488. For example, Feynman noted that a quantum computer could be used to simulate certain other quantum systems, allowing exponentially faster calculation of certain properties of the simulated quantum system than is possible using a UTM.
2.1 Approaches to Quantum Computation
There are several general approaches to the design and operation of quantum computers. One such approach is the “circuit model” of quantum computation. In this approach, qubits are acted upon by sequences of logical gates that are the compiled representation of an algorithm. Circuit model quantum computers have several serious barriers to practical implementation. The circuit model requires that qubits remain coherent over time periods much longer than the single-gate time. This requirement arises because circuit model quantum computers require operations that are collectively called quantum error correction in order to operate. Quantum error correction cannot be performed without the circuit model quantum computer's qubits being capable of maintaining quantum coherence over time periods on the order of 1,000 times the single-gate time. Much research has been focused on developing qubits with coherence sufficient to form the basic information units of circuit model quantum computers. See e.g., Shor, P. W. “Introduction to Quantum Algorithms” arXiv.org:quant-ph/0005003 (2001), pp. 1-27. Such art is still hampered by an inability to increase the coherence of qubits to acceptable levels for designing and operating practical circuit model quantum computers.
Another approach to quantum computation involves using the natural physical evolution of a system of coupled quantum systems as a computational system. This approach does not make critical use of quantum gates and circuits. Instead, starting from a known initial Hamiltonian, it relies upon the guided physical evolution of a system of coupled quantum systems wherein the problem to be solved has been encoded in the terms of the system's Hamiltonian, so that the final state of the system of coupled quantum systems contains information relating to the answer to the problem to be solved. This approach does not require long qubit coherence times. Examples of this type of approach include adiabatic quantum computation, cluster-state quantum computation, one-way quantum computation, and simulated annealing, and are described, for example, in Farhi, E. et al., “Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithms versus Simulated Annealing” arXiv.org:quant-ph/0201031 (2002), pp 1-16.
2.2 Qubits
As mentioned previously, qubits can be used as fundamental units of information for a quantum computer. As with bits in UTMs, qubits can refer to at least two distinct quantities; a qubit can refer to the actual physical device in which information is stored, and it can also refer to the unit of information itself, abstracted away from its physical device.
Qubits generalize the concept of a classical digital bit. A classical information storage device can encode two discrete states, typically labeled “0” and “1”. Physically these two discrete states are represented by two different and distinguishable physical states of the classical information storage device, such as direction or magnitude of magnetic field, current or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bit state behaves according to the laws of classical physics. A qubit also contains two discrete physical states, which can also be labeled “0” and “1”. Physically these two discrete states are represented by two different and distinguishable physical states of the quantum information storage device, such as direction or magnitude of magnetic field, current or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bit state behaves according to the laws of quantum physics. If the physical quantity that stores these states behaves quantum mechanically, the device can additionally be placed in a superposition of 0 and 1. That is, the qubit can exist in both a “0” and “1” state at the same time, and so can perform a computation on both states simultaneously. In general, N qubits can be in a superposition of 2 states. Quantum algorithms make use of the superposition property to speed up some computations.
In standard notation, the basis states of a qubit are referred to as the |0 and |1 states. During quantum computation, the state of a qubit, in general, is a superposition of basis states so that the qubit has a nonzero probability of occupying the |0 basis state and a simultaneous nonzero probability of occupying the |1 basis state. Mathematically, a superposition of basis states means that the overall state of the qubit, which is denoted |Ψ, has the form |Ψ=a|0+b|1, where a and b are coefficients corresponding to the probabilities |a|2 and |b|2, respectively. The coefficients a and b each have real and imaginary components, which allows the phase of the qubit to be characterized. The quantum nature of a qubit is largely derived from its ability to exist in a coherent superposition of basis states and for the state of the qubit to have a phase. A qubit will retain this ability to exist as a coherent superposition of basis states when the qubit is sufficiently isolated from sources of decoherence.
To complete a computation using a qubit, the state of the qubit is measured (i.e., read out). Typically, when a measurement of the qubit is performed, the quantum nature of the qubit is temporarily lost and the superposition of basis states collapses to either the |0 basis state or the |1 basis state and thus regaining its similarity to a conventional bit. The actual state of the qubit after it has collapsed depends on the probabilities |a|2 and |b|2 immediately prior to the readout operation.
2.3 Superconducting Qubits
There are many different hardware and software approaches under consideration for use in quantum computers. One hardware approach uses integrated circuits formed of superconducting materials, such as aluminum or niobium. The technologies and processes involved in designing and fabricating superconducting integrated circuits are similar to those used for conventional integrated circuits.
Superconducting qubits are a type of superconducting device that can be included in a superconducting integrated circuit. Superconducting qubits can be separated into several categories depending on the physical property used to encode information. For example, they may be separated into charge, flux and phase devices, as discussed in, for example Makhlin et al., 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics 73, pp. 357-400. Charge devices store and manipulate information in the charge states of the device, where elementary charges consist of pairs of electrons called Cooper pairs. A Cooper pair has a charge of 2e and consists of two electrons bound together by, for example, a phonon interaction. See e.g., Nielsen and Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000), pp. 343-345. Flux devices store information in a variable related to the magnetic flux through some part of the device. Phase devices store information in a variable related to the difference is superconducting phase between two regions of the phase device. Recently, hybrid devices using two or more of charge, flux and phase degrees of freedom have been developed. See e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,838,694 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005-0082519.
2.4 Quantum Processor
A computer processor may take the form of an analog processor, for instance a quantum processor such as a superconducting quantum processor. A superconducting quantum processor may include a number of qubits and associated local bias devices, for instance two or more superconducting qubits. Further detail and embodiments of exemplary quantum processors that may be used in conjunction with the present systems, methods, and apparatus are described in US Patent Publication No. 2006-0225165 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/872,414, filed Jan. 12, 2007 and entitled “System, Devices and Methods for Interconnected Processor Topology”.
A superconducting quantum processor may include a number of coupling devices operable to selectively couple respective pairs of qubits. Examples of superconducting coupling devices include rf-SQUIDs and dc-SQUIDs, which couple qubits together by flux. SQUIDs include a superconducting loop interrupted by one Josephson junction (an rf-SQUID) or two Josephson junctions (a dc-SQUID). Those of skill in the art will appreciate that a SQUID that incorporates more than two Josephson junctions may also be used. The coupling devices may be capable of both ferromagnetic and anti-ferromagnetic coupling, depending on how the coupling device is being utilized within the interconnected topology. In the case of flux coupling, ferromagnetic coupling implies that parallel fluxes are energetically favorable and anti-ferromagnetic coupling implies that anti-parallel fluxes are energetically favorable. Alternatively, charge-based coupling devices may also be used. Other coupling devices can be found, for example, in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/247,857 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/886,253, filed Jan. 23, 2007 and entitled “SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLABLY COUPLING QUBITS”. Respective coupling strengths of the coupling devices may be tuned between zero and a maximum value, for example, to provide ferromagnetic or anti-ferromagnetic coupling between qubits.
2.5 Adiabatic Quantum Computation
As mentioned previously, adiabatic quantum computation typically involves evolving a system from a known initial Hamiltonian (the Hamiltonian being an operator whose eigenvalues are the allowed energies of the system) to a final Hamiltonian by gradually changing the Hamiltonian. If the evolution is too fast, then the system can be excited to a higher state, such as the first excited state. There may exist points in the evolution of the system Hamiltonian where excitation out of the ground state is easiest because the ground state and first excited state are especially close in energy. These points are referred to as “anti-crossings”. Evolution Hamiltonians usually only possess one anti-crossing, but some may have more than one or none at all.
For the present purposes, an “adiabatic” evolution is considered to be an evolution that satisfies the adiabatic condition at all points during the evolution, wherein the adiabatic condition is expressed as:{dot over (s)}|1|dHe/ds|0|=δg2(s)where {dot over (s)} is the time derivative of s, g(s) is the difference in energy between the ground state and first excited state of the system (also referred to herein as the “gap size”) as a function of s, and δ is a coefficient much less than 1. At any point during the evolution, if the adiabatic condition is not satisfied, then at that point the evolution is considered non-adiabatic for the present purposes. An evolution may be adiabatic at some points in time while non-adiabatic at others.
A simple example of a linear adiabatic evolution is:He=(1−s)Hi+sHf where Hi is the initial Hamiltonian, Hf is the final Hamiltonian, He is the evolution or instantaneous Hamiltonian, and s is evolution coefficient which controls the rate of evolution. The coefficient s goes from 0 to 1, such that at the beginning of the evolution process the evolution Hamiltonian is equal to the initial Hamiltonian and at the end of the process the evolution Hamiltonian is equal to the final Hamiltonian.
The rate that s changes, sometimes referred to as an evolution or annealing schedule, is normally constant and slow enough that the system is always in the instantaneous ground state of the evolution Hamiltonian during the evolution, and transitions at anti-crossings (i.e., when the gap size is smallest) are avoided. However, this constrains the evolution to be unnecessarily slow even at points where the gap size is large.
Although adiabatic quantum computation is thought to be faster at solving some computational problems than classical computers, the speed is limited by the fact that the quantum system must be evolved slowly enough to avoid excitations out of the ground state. Farhi et al., 2002, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0208135 propose using faster non-linear evolution schedules. Mizel et al., 2002, Physical Review A 65, 022315 analyze the impact that the gap size has on adiabatic evolutions, but do not suggest a method of overcoming the difficulties that anti-crossings pose. Sarandy et al., Physical Review Letters 95, 250503 analyze situations where the adiabaticity of the evolution breaks down and suggest speeding up the evolution and performing it many times. However, they still adhere to the adiabatic principle and do not propose methods to make any part of the evolution non-adiabatic. Knysh et al., 2005, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0511131 disclose a method of adiabatic quantum computation on a lattice of qubits with constant couplings, but do not disclose methods of improving the speed of adiabatic quantum computation. Roland et al., 2002, Physical Review A 65, 042308 describe a method of slowing down the adiabatic evolution at known points where an anti-crossing occurs, where the slow-down is proportional to the gap size of the anti-crossing. At points far away from anti-crossings, the evolution can be sped up. However, this technique is still unsatisfactory because it is difficult to determine the exact point where an anti-crossing occurs during the adiabatic evolution and its corresponding gap size. As a consequence, for an arbitrary evolution Hamiltonian, this technique is not effective. Further details on adiabatic quantum computing systems, methods, and apparatus are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/625,702.
Thus, while methods for improving the speed of adiabatic quantum computation have been proposed, such proposals are unsatisfactory in that they fail to provide a satisfactory means of handling anti-crossings, and thus such proposals include evolution schedules where the evolution must still be very slow through anti-crossings.
In the figures, identical reference numbers identify similar elements or acts. The sizes and relative positions of elements in the figures are not necessarily drawn to scale. For example, the shapes of various elements and angles are not drawn to scale, and some of these elements are arbitrarily enlarged and positioned to improve legibility. Further, the particular shapes of the elements as drawn are not intended to convey any information regarding the actual shape of the particular elements and have been solely selected for ease of recognition in the figures. Furthermore, while the figures may show specific layouts, one skilled in the art will appreciate that variations in design, layout, and fabrication are possible and the shown layouts are not to be construed as limiting the layout of the present systems, methods and apparatus.